Jonathan Yeasting

Immergut: I'm handling this on expedited basis, but defendants haven't provided new info.

SHE RULES FROM THE BENCH: I grant the plaintiffs motion for a second TRO based on reasons stated in previous order...

What is a text I should read on the Pullman strike?

John Roberts: Good morning, counsel. Before we begin, I understand that there is an update to the caption in this case?
Me: Yes, your honor. My client recently changed their name.
JR: Alright. And what is your client's new name?
Me: Webster Bivens, your honor.
JR: <covering the mic> oh shit

Who gets to make students write up whether requiring private owners to allow ICE agents to use their restroom is “quartering”?

My hunch was that ISP’s presence at protests was supposed to be just a memo to be delivered some time next to some district court.

But, the governor didn’t think through that cops can’t help but act like cops.

There’s an elementary school on that corner.

Sadly, it’s an unconstitutional condition that too many universities seem happy to accept.

If you haven’t read this opinion yet, you should.

But how could we do anything about it if we don’t have a precise, justiciable test to tell us that democracy is in trouble.

Oh, you have tests? Never mind. I’ll retire.

I would take this more seriously if I knew State AG or Cook County State’s Attorney was involved and willing to charge.

The Kavanaugh Stop

Black’s Sabbath.

If you’re wondering where it is: From the origin, travel -50 along the x axis, then 100 up the y axis.

It turns out that states have a surprising number of options. See statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/featured/202...

Wait, California’s police lobby is called PORC?

State laws ban bribery too, y’know.

Who’s writing the jurisprudence explaining how state courts can read Supreme Court decisions narrowly and skeptically as the Supreme Court’s legitimacy falls apart?

Would like to see this courage in other blue states’ courts— instead of uncritically reading state law rights in “lockstep” with Roberts Court’s constitutional interpretations, as if SCOTUS decisions still had some morally persuasive force.

None that I’ve heard of. I know of one nascent effort that might have gone that way but lost a grant.
Almost no one has used these statutes outside the dv/family law context afaik. Even the criminal stalking statutes have been mostly used only for police/clouted complainants.
But there they are.

Seems like a good time to point out that Illinois law has robust, largely untested, private rights of action for doxxing and cyberstalking.

The esprit du temps of the current spirit of the Zeitgeist of our times.

Worth reading just to imagine the in-chambers conversation about “Zeitgeist of our time.”

I mean there are ways of doing that without doing THAT. Show division (without calling it a “split”) by, say, counting up all the district and circuit courts judges on each side, for example.
Or just call the appellate judges off their rocker.

But not THAT.

I canceled my ESPN today.

Not my area of first amendment law, what does standing for listeners look like in this area?

Would be less horrifying if there wasn’t a real chance this case ends up in a cert. petition on, umm, the actual malice standard that at least captures a Thomas dissent.

Bandit despondently wandering the beach after his quack archaeology is rejected by the academy.

A spokesperson with the Cook County Public Defender's Office has confirmed that federal agents were once again seen at the Cook County Domestic Violence Courthouse in Chicago this morning.

Most plausible path is maybe through a state constitutional convention, which haven't been all that uncommon.

Whether federal law would bar parliamentary gov't would come down to how SCOTUS votes. Most people have assumed it was okay, but haven't had reason to invent a theory otherwise yet.

Common practice where I am is to add the first name to distinguish them.